Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaf people

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 01:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of deaf people

• Inappropriate article for an encyclopedia. Perhaps a better article title? Alex.tan 16:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry but I don't see that a list of people who achieved notability in spite of such a handicap is inappropriate. But perhaps the title is not considered PC? — RJH 17:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this list either, although including everybody who lost their hearing in old age might make it unwieldy. sjorford →•← 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think "deaf" is an un-PC word, given the number of charities that use it in their names (RNID, etc). Nick04 19:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What is this, some sort of vendetta on deaf articles? Please note that I've been trying to get to this article to improve it but the anti-deaf crowd at Wiki is attacking deaf articles so frequently I haven't had the time. Inappropriate? With all due respect, it's a much needed article. Don't delete! No! No! No!. Just because the article can't be worked on on Alex's timetable is no reason to delete it. Oh! Now I see. Alex is an M.D. who believes medical science trumps social science. Ray Foster 19:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this definitely Yuckfoo 19:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then create a category of notable deaf people (we wouldn't want everybody's grandma in there, after all). Radiant! 21:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect that I see where the problem lies. It's nothing to do with political correctness or vendettas. Not assuming good faith has blinded you to the obvious. Ray Foster looks at the title but instead reads List of deaf people notable for their leadership and accomplishments; whereas Alex.tan looks at the title (and the opening paragraph of the article), reads List of deaf people, and is horrified at the prospect of Wikipedia becoming a directory of people who are deaf, a prospect that those who have dealt with how lists tend to grow will find all too probable. This article needs to be Renamed to nip things in the bud. That could have been done immediately, by just being bold, without need for bringing the article to WP:VFD. Uncle G 21:43, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  • I don't think it needs to be renamed. Notability is implicit for lists. Keep. Gazpacho 00:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A notability barrier is implicit for the lists themselves as a whole, but not necessarily for their individual entries. Indeed, one of the ways of including information that does not warrant an article in its own right is to include it within a list, providing context. Unfortunately, there's a tendency to over-wikify lists, especially lists of people. Then as a consequence of that people "helpfully" re-colour redlinks by adding sub-stub biographical articles that will never expand. And as the edit history of this article shows, we've already had non-notable deaf people added to it as redlinks at least once. This article does not make the inclusion criteria clear. It's title gives no clue that it is not a "list of deaf people", neither does its opening paragraph, and one has to read to the very end of the preamble to see the phrase "notable for their leadership and accomplishments" occur at all. The case for renaming is a strong one. Uncle G 13:27, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
• Keep, see Talk:Deaf#Disambiguate_the_.22List_of_deaf_people.22.3F for ongoing discussion on cleanup/renaming. --Pengo 22:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with the word "deaf", and I think it's already obvious that only notable people should be included on the list. If we have a problem, we can always make it a redirect to List of notable deaf people. Binadot 22:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I think all the "in later life" entries should be removed. Just about everyone who lives to a certain age experiences some degree of hearing loss. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if there is a category, it doesn't serve the same purpose as a category. RickK 06:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the name is changed to List of notable deaf people and all the entries can be verified. Those who have lost part of their hearing due to old age do not necessarily apply - Skysmith 09:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.